I got the impression from your predecessor that his view was that the principal effect was shifting the timing.

There is legislation that I think would be very constructive to that end. It was introduced in the House by Congressman Mulvaney, and what it would do is streamline some of the regulations affecting business development companies.

you're going to see how this campaign plays out before he can determine whether to support Donald Trump.

taxpayers are on the hook today because of Dodd-Frank.

we did not have an adequate resolution mechanism for the failure of a very large, complex financial institution.

Do you think a $50 billion bank in America is systemically important to our $17 trillion economy?

the notion that repealing Title II puts taxpayers on the hook for a bailout is just amazing to me.

I get that, but just so that I understand, is it the policy of the Administration to pay Iran for the heavy water?

Has Secretary Kerry been visiting European banks and encouraging them to do business with Iran?

Despite all of this bad behavior post-JCPOA conclusion, it seems to me the Administration is, nevertheless, conferring more benefits upon the Iranians than the JCPOA even requires.

I thought this was a terrible deal at the time. I thought then it was a bad idea to turn over $100 billion to the world's leading State sponsor of terrorism.

It has been characterized by some European banks as him actively encouraging them to do business with Iran despite the outrageous behavior.

I share the view of Senator Menendez that in response to these really outrageous and aggressive behaviors, we have every right--in fact, responsibility, really, to impose the kind of sanctions that might dissuade these behaviors.

Thank you for this opportunity to present our views, and we would be pleased to respond to any questions that Members of the Committee may have.

the JCPOA does not preclude non-nuclear sanctions

In fact, doesn't the Administration argue that this is not a legally binding agreement with respect to Iran but, rather, a set of political commitments?

It appears implicitly to be virtually condoning the behavior.

Congress should reject this nuclear blackmail and hold the Administration accountable for its commitments.

I remain strongly opposed to this deal that turns over something on the order of $100 billion to the world's leading State sponsor of terrorism.

The Administration has designated no individuals or entities for human rights abuses since the nuclear deal was reached.

I would note Iran is in flagrant violation of 2231, which is the implementation resolution of the JCPOA.

Sanctions against Iran's many malign activities are not JCPOA violations, as Iran claims, but, rather, an affirmation of U.S. policy.

the U.S. Government and U.S. Congress is not going to be shy about using all instruments, of course, of powering, including sanctions, to stop that activity

That is what it looks like to me, and that strikes me as a bad idea.

This notion that somehow there is... moderates who we should economically seduce.